Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Mercer

A.C.A.B.

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Just wow.  I think it's very unfair that he won't get the same type of treatment ANYONE else would have gotten in that situation.  They'd be hospitalized with an expensive ambulance bill, then jailed for DUI, license revoked, car impounded, court dates, rehab classes, and the whole nine yards.

 

I know you @Fist 666are not a fan of law enforcement but I promise they're not all bad people.  It only takes a few bad apples.  This is definitely, without a doubt, one of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dirty_habiTto me this one is more, this is a bad apple in a shitty tree. I know that there are cops with good intentions, even cops that have solid trust and rapport within the communities they (try to) protect and serve. Those might even be the majority of individual police officers--the system which they work within is absolutely garbage. At some point, there is no "change the system from within" mentality that isn't insanity, I don't know how many years on the force it takes for someone to go from good-intentioned to power hungry pig, but they are protected no matter what they do, so I stand by the thread title. 

 

Here's another recent fun one from Denver

https://kdvr.com/2020/01/20/denver-deputy-stopped-for-driving-van-90-mph-while-transporting-3-inmates/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn dude, that's straight garbage (in reference to the choking death of the street preacher and the speeding w/ inmates in construction zone).  😕

 

I think you do have a good point about even if you're a "good cop" the corruption in some departments eventually prevents you from being promoted or rewarded for always trying to do the correct moral thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fist 666 said:

See, the only thing that bothers me about this is that they'd just presume guilt in a normal civilian's case. I only seek equality, and accountability, and can't blame them for doing shit like this where they let someone off the hook who didn't actually hurt anyone, or wasn't caught red handed driving like that.

 

You should totally be allowed to get drunk at work and pass out in the wip, unless your caught driving like that. It would be up to your boss if they thought it was in their best interest to fire you. Holding police more accountable than civilians is just as bad as not holding them as accountable. They're humans, and should be expected to be flawed like the rest of us. Throwing him n jail really wouldn't do anything but waste taxes.

 

In this case they're doing the right/smart by not prosecuting,  I mean if we're being honest, how many of us would turn our coworkers in considering the fact that your coworkers are responsible for protecting your life because you're constantly put in dangerous situations. I just wish they'd extend that same "no harm done" policy towards the public. 

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mercer said:

See, the only thing that bothers me about this is that they'd just presume guilt in a normal civilian's case. I only seek equality, and accountability, and can't blame them for doing shit like this where they let someone off the hook who didn't actually hurt anyone, or wasn't caught red handed driving like that.

 

You should totally be allowed to get drunk at work and pass out in the wip, unless your caught driving like that. It would be up to your boss if they thought it was in their best interest to fire you. Holding police more accountable than civilians is just as bad as not holding them as accountable. They're humans, and should be expected to be flawed like the rest of us. Throwing him n jail really wouldn't do anything but waste taxes.

 

In this case they're doing the right/smart by not prosecuting,  I mean if we're being honest, how many of us would turn our coworkers in considering the fact that your coworkers are responsible for protecting your life because you're constantly put in dangerous situations. I just wish they'd extend that same "no harm done" policy towards the public. 

To hell with all of that. If this were absolutely anyone else, and not a cop, they would be in jail. He was 5 times the legal limit of .08, which is .4... At .4, you’re toying with alcohol poisoning related death. When you pass double the legal limit, .16, you can be charged with aggravated DUIs in some states, which comes with much harsher penalties. Falling asleep in your car drunk is absolutely a arrest-able offense in many states, including Colorado. If the car can be driven, and you are in it, they will use intent, forget admitting you had already been driving like this guy did.. It happens to every other John and Jane in America, it should have happened to him. 
 

edit: the next drunk person they find sleeping in their car won’t be as fortunate as this cop, i’d bet my next paycheck on it. 
 

double edit: not saying i don’t agree that people shouldn’t be able to sleep it off safely, but that’s not the real world, anymore. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MercerIf the police are only going to be held to the same standards as civilians, then they have no business policing. Of course he is just human, but he swore his oath to uphold the laws, civvies didn't swear on any of it.

 

They must be held to a higher standard if they are the ones enforcing the rules. I'm sure LE offices are a lot like military posts chock full of "if you need help with your alcohol...." posters and support groups. Clearly this dude has a problem, he didn't seek help, and as far as the evidence shows he didn't do anything to address his alcoholism--now he is being protected by the system of IA privacy and will likely wind up back on the streets policing people that don't have the support networks he had access to. That might be another can of worms--police firing and moving between departments is almost like the Catholic church moving pederasts around to protect them.

 

The higher standards piece especially applies to remaining calm in an escalated situation and not popping off on a lady holding a nintendo controller, but I digress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fist 666I hear you, but simply saying they should be "held to higher standards", and actually holding them to higher standards are 2 separate things. This all circles back to the fact they are all flawed human beings, and instead of relying on a system that ignores this fact in pursuit of some ideal situation, the system should be set up to account for this reality.

 

The biggest hurdle to holding them accountable is amount of training invested in an individual LE officer. It can vary based on jurisdiction, and the time they've been on the force, but in many cases the dollar cost for training can exceed 6 figures within the first few years, and can take years to get through. This amount of investment is the reason why the people administrating LE departments can rarely afford to fire one outside of their first year or two. This is why it's worth it for them to swallow a $250,000 law suit here and there, rather than just fire an officer. They're just not that easily, or even possible to replace in most cases. Granted there are also the legal costs of the officer suing if they're fired, and police Unions involved when you try to fire one, but the main reason they're not easily disposed of, and often times end up on other departments is this massive investment into the individual LE officers.

 

I've already given my opinions on how the force should be privatized, I'd like to just pay a small fee for insurance as opposed to taxes, and have a local security/insurance force of my choosing at my disposal should the need arise. Since a private company wouldn't be granted an automatic monopoly, their services would be superior. Likewise since there wouldn't be this assumed "higher accountability" because they're just citizens like everyone else, the accountability would be built in, just like it is for all non LE officers/citizens out there doing their thing. Snapping your fingers and saying cops should be perfect doesn't work, and is meaningless.

 

It's the same reality we face when politicians tell us we're declaring all health "a right". The number of doctors, nurses, and hospital beds doesn't automatically increase at the snap of a finger to increase the amount of health care that can be administered. What happens is the quality of care has to be lowered to meet increased demand, and wait times for procedures have to be increased. I mean technically if it's a "right" we would need to enslave healthcare workers to 16 hour shifts meet the demand, otherwise by taking time off they're violating someone's rights. These utopian pursuits that ignore reality, like refusing to factoring in LE will always be comprised by flawed human beings is a dead end, and does nothing to defeat the problem.

 

If we pretend we're shocked when it's revealed they're flawed human beings, and fire officers for inconsequential actions we'll have a shortage. To account for this we could increase wages to meet the demand, but the fact is most people aren't cut out for this work, and those wages would need to be ridiculously high to entice more people into this line of work, thus driving up taxes, and wages in the competitive job markets this would draw from. Most officers are already paid well above average to account for this higher standard.

 

Again, this situation makes me question the logic of arresting anyone for getting drunk, and passing out in their car. To me, this is a no brainer, of course they shouldn't be arrested, and it would be up to their work whether or not it's worth it to fire them, and make arrangements to hire/train someone else. I can't believe I'm defending a cop not getting fucked over in an A.C.A.B. thread I started, but it makes sense considering I hold logical consistency in such high regards.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't just fall asleep in the parking lot he left the car in though, he drove, and then passed out. He flat out committed a crime and admitted to it. He could have easily crashed the car and injured or killed someone. If he walked out of a bar and passed out in the parking lot we might be able to talk. Again, this situation would never happen if it were not a cop, not in today’s society. 
 

Back in the day i’ve heard numerous stories of this taking place. Cops giving rides, leaving cars on the side of the road, telling them to sleep it off.. it doesn’t happen anymore. Maybe in small town Nebraska, but on the grand scale, no way.

Edited by abrasivesaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone that’s not a cop..


“The penalties for a DUI in Colorado depend on how many drunk driving convictions the accused has and their level of alcohol. A DUI is a misdemeanor offense.

 

A conviction for a first-time DUI can include:

 

-From 5 days up to 1 year in jail,

-A fine of up to $1,000,

-Revocation of your license for 9-months,

-Community service for up to 96 hours, and

-Alcohol education classes.

 

A driver with a BAC of 0.08% or higher can face a DUI per se charge. However, even with a lower BAC or no chemical test results, a driver can face charges for driving while ability impaired (DWAI), based on the observations of police.
 

The penalties for a DWAI conviction are slightly lower than for a DUI, including:

 

-From 2 days up to 180 days in jail,

-A fine of up to $500,

-8 points against your license, and

-Community service for up to 48 hours.

 

Note that each successive DUI conviction will trigger harsher penalties. A second offense DUI in Colorado will entail stiffer penalties than a first offense, and a third offense DUI in Colorado entails still harsher penalties. 

 

High Alcohol DUI

An individual with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) 0.15% or above will be classified as a “persistent drunk driver.” There are increased penalties for drivers with a high blood alcohol content, including Level II alcohol education classes.

 

Even if the accused has never been arrested before, he or she will be considered a persistent drunk driver with BAC of 0.15% or higher. A high blood alcohol content DUI may require a mandatory ignition interlock device (IID) for at least 2 years to have the driver's license reinstated.” 


59D6D4A2-3800-44B6-BD87-5CAC605706A0.thumb.jpeg.d331237c83540262f2bd7ce1fb268ef5.jpeg

Edited by abrasivesaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

He didn't just fall asleep in the parking lot he left the car in though, he drove, and then passed out. He flat out committed a crime and admitted to it.

In that case it's wrong to not charge him, and he should be shot in self defense if he ever attempted to kidnap another motorist for doing the same. 

  • LOL! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a little harsh, what I should say is anyone on his department should be shot in self defense for that, since it's not entirely his fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MercerI'm not sure the logical consistency is there. I get that training is expensive, replacing is expensive, privatization has benefits, etc--but that doesn't give flawed humans an excuse to overlook other flawed humans for breaking rules in a flawed system. All that does is say no laws, rules, or norms can be expected to be upheld because we've got a built in excuse to ignore them, so fuck it, yolo, lets race the cop cars while drinking vodka from evian bottles. Bart-Simpson-Anarchism is at the end result of that line of logic.

 

Your ilk loves the "I didn't sign the social contract" piece as a means of sidestepping all of this. This fine officer not only agreed to the social contract, he swore an oath to enforce the gritty written details that hold the social contract together and make it worth acknowledging. Calling this story an "inconsequential action" is dangerous and short sighted. 

 

If police departments spent more seeking out qualified candidates, more on training, and more on community rapport building and less on out-of-court settlements, military grade vehicles and weaponry, sports cars instead of good-enough cruisers, then they wouldn't need to fire all the shitbirds they hire and worry about recouping the cost. (I've got to assume/hope you agree with me in this sentence.)

 

Using the cost of retraining "civil servants" as a means of justifying not firing people who are a definitive threat to the citizens they are meant to serve, while economically sensible, is ethically  reprehensible. I don't know that there is a good answer to the problem, but I'm not comfortable calling it "logical."

 

I think this ends with agree to disagree, but I'm gonna go hike in the snow and stay off the screen for the rest of the weekend.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

@MercerI'm not sure the logical consistency is there. I get that training is expensive, replacing is expensive, privatization has benefits, etc--but that doesn't give flawed humans an excuse to overlook other flawed humans for breaking rules in a flawed system.

Where are these supposed unflawed humans we should be seeking out then? This is why I'm not down with government. Wouldn't it just make more sense to assume all humans are flawed

 

I can show you the error in logic:

 

People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People are bad, so we need a government made up of People....

 

 

Quote

All that does is say no laws, rules, or norms can be expected to be upheld because we've got a built in excuse to ignore them, so fuck it, yolo, lets race the cop cars while drinking vodka from evian bottles. Bart-Simpson-Anarchism is at the end result of that line of logic.

Nope, I'm suggesting holding officers to the exact same accountability as everyone else without privilege. Also, I know it's hard to but let's try to keep it civil, and not hurl insults at each other's beliefs. There's plenty I could say to insult, but I try to stick to a more civil tone. Besides, what you're falsely implying I think "there shouldn't be any rules for either police, or civilians", which is the opposite of what I've suggested, and believe.

 

Quote

Your ilk loves the "I didn't sign the social contract" piece as a means of sidestepping all of this. This fine officer not only agreed to the social contract, he swore an oath to enforce the gritty written details that hold the social contract together and make it worth acknowledging. Calling this story an "inconsequential action" is dangerous and short sighted.

Who's has faced negative consequences from his actions, or anyone else's actions from simply passing out in a car?

 

For a crime to take place, you need a victim. I simply pointed out there was no direct  harm done by him, or any other person who's ever found passed out in their car (unless they wrecked it before passing out). IMO Police should see if a passed out individual in a car needs help, and if not keep it moving and maybe look for someone directly harming others (criminals).

 

Quote

If police departments spent more seeking out qualified candidates, more on training, and more on community rapport building and less on out-of-court settlements, military grade vehicles and weaponry, sports cars instead of good-enough cruisers, then they wouldn't need to fire all the shitbirds they hire and worry about recouping the cost. (I've got to assume/hope you agree with me in this sentence.)

I don't, unfortunately. You can't spend your way out of this problem, it's been tried. This system is already throwing too much money at LE now when you factor in civil suits, pensions, department costs, etc. What we do know for sure isn't working right now is having a separate, almost non-existent justice system just for them, and that can be applied to the highest/lowest compensated LE officers and departments. To assume you can just spend your way out of all these problems disregards the value of efficiency, and ignores reality. I mean if it were as simple as spending more money on recruiting, training, and community rapport building the problem would have solved itself by now.

 

Quote

Using the cost of retraining "civil servants" as a means of justifying not firing people who are a definitive threat to the citizens they are meant to serve, while economically sensible, is ethically  reprehensible. I don't know that there is a good answer to the problem, but I'm not comfortable calling it "logical."

Again, you're twisting my words to create a false narrative to argue against. I never said there's anything that justifies criminal actions by anyone. I was pointing out the reason why officer's aren't fired when they should be, not condoning it. You really think I feel that way, really? I'm 100% about accountability of LE as a solution. It boils down to any violation of the non aggression principal makes a person a criminal, and that person should face consequences for that violation. 

 

Quote

I think this ends with agree to disagree, but I'm gonna go hike in the snow and stay off the screen for the rest of the weekend.

I should probably do the same this weekend. So there's at least something we can agree on. 

Edited by Mercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mercer said:

Holding police more accountable than civilians is just as bad as not holding them as accountable. They're humans, and should be expected to be flawed like the rest of us.

Totally disagree.

 

They should be held to a higher standard. They're placed in privileged positions that are easily taken advantage of. As such, they're also more likely to get away with it in addition to being paid to not only enforce laws, but serve as pillars to the community as a whole. Anyone that violates law, while maintaining a privileged position that directly relates to the laws being violated should be held to greater scrutiny and consequence.

 

Example: A surgeon raping a patient while under anesthesia for a procedure is not the same as a woman being raped by a stranger that snatched her walking by an alley. Both are horrible, but one is vastly different than the other. There's a matter of trust that sits at the heart of one versus the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this mean? Should they get double

11 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Totally disagree.

 

They should be held to a higher standard. They're placed in privileged positions that are easily taken advantage of. As such, they're also more likely to get away with it in addition to being paid to not only enforce laws, but serve as pillars to the community as a whole. Anyone that violates law, while maintaining a privileged position that directly relates to the laws being violated should be held to greater scrutiny and consequence.

 

Example: A surgeon raping a patient while under anesthesia for a procedure is not the same as a woman being raped by a stranger that snatched her walking by an alley. Both are horrible, but one is vastly different than the other. There's a matter of trust that sits at the heart of one versus the other.

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

  • Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?
  • Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?
  • How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mercer said:

So what does this mean? Should they get double

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

  • Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?

Maybe not double or triple, in the least it should be equal, maybe slightly higher. Stiff penalties are often enforced as a deterrent for normal citizens. Perhaps stiffer penalties should be enforced to deter those with a position of power and authority. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Mercer said:
  • Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?

Depending on what exactly we’re talking about here, no. Unless there is a conflict of interest. 
 

5 hours ago, Mercer said:
  • How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

If they’re qualified and honest they will have nothing to fear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mercer said:

So what does this mean? Should they get double

So what does this higher degree of accountability mean?

  • Should they get double, triple the punishment a civilian gets?
  • Should things that are legal for civilians be illegal for officers?
  • How would we keep these crucial positions filled with qualified individuals if it's the officers that would face unfair treatment?

The maximum penalty established for that level of crime + 100%. No exceptions, no loop holes. 
 

Anyone that might choose to not pursue a career path cause they don’t like the consequences if they were to abuse the power that comes with that job, sounds like exactly what you’d want. Precisely the way to filter applicants / candidates to high trust jobs.
 

Might be willing to go 1000% when it comes to legislators and drain the swamp for real. 

  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...